News Supreme Court Judges should be ELECTED

I firmly believe that our Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court should be ELECTED. The Constitution has set up THREE separate branches of our Government. The Congress, President and Supreme Court. WE elect our Congress and President, BUT not our THIRD branch, the Supreme Court. WHY NOT? Not only should they be elected but I believe that TERM limits for all our Branches of Government should be for ONE FIVE year term and that's it. This would possibly stop the present system which allows for the creation of powerful and influential individuals. Also, there would be no more continuous campaining by a "just elected" individual as there would be no second term to run for. I say give the power to the people at all levels. To allow one branch of government to select another should be unconstitutional.

Electing our Supreme Court judges would create more problems. Like electing a president, they will have big money campaign contributors such as multinational companies, which will affect their ruling in the Supreme Court.

He shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law;....

The Judicial branch is supposed to enforce and interpret the Constitution, not the will of the people. If the people don't like the judicial interpretation of the Constitution, they can change the Constitution through the elected branches of the government.

Do we really want politics polluting the courts any more than it already does? Frankly, I think our federal appeals court and Supreme Court do an overall decent job. No, I don't always agree, but I can usually at least follow their reasoning. Try getting such good service out of an elected official...

Originally posted by master_coda The Judicial branch is supposed to enforce and interpret the Constitution, not the will of the people. If the people don't like the judicial interpretation of the Constitution, they can change the Constitution through the elected branches of the government.

Exactly.

timejim,
You firmly believe that they should be elected, but what makes that belief so firm?
What would be the benefit of the Justices being elected over them being appointed?

Originally posted by master_coda The Judicial branch is supposed to enforce and interpret the Constitution, not the will of the people. If the people don't like the judicial interpretation of the Constitution, they can change the Constitution through the elected branches of the government.

Not enforce. Judicial branches can only enforce the law within their courtrooms. They may issue warrants and subpeonas, but they rely on executive agencies to enforce them.

Originally posted by timejim I firmly believe that our Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court should be ELECTED.

Can you imagine Judge Schwarzenegger? Judge Perot?

I'm not sure the voting public could identify the best law experts to sit on the highest court (since many people tend to vote based on a specific issue or just along party lines). I suppose it's possible in an ideal world if enough info was provided, but I think it would be difficult and susceptible to corruption.

They are indirectly elected aren't they? The President nominates (wrong word? - can' think of right one) them, and then the House and/or Senate (WE elected THEM) confirms them (or not...). Right? What about the life-long appointment, though? What are your thoughts on that? I believe I might prefer a little shorter term...

Originally posted by Tsunami They are indirectly elected aren't they? The President nominates (wrong word? - can' think of right one) them, and then the House and/or Senate (WE elected THEM) confirms them (or not...). Right? What about the life-long appointment, though? What are your thoughts on that? I believe I might prefer a little shorter term...

Well, obviously the judges have to be appointed by someone, so elected officials will be involved somewhat. But because new judges aren't appointed all that often, it takes a long time for the elected branchs to fill the supreme court with judges with the same ideology.

I've noticed that one of the things that seems to make supreme court justices unpopular is when the judges "change" a long-standing interpretation of the Constitution. But reducing the length of the appointments or electing the judges would cause this to happen more often, not less.

Originally posted by master_coda Well, obviously the judges have to be appointed by someone, so elected officials will be involved somewhat. But because new judges aren't appointed all that often, it takes a long time for the elected branchs to fill the supreme court with judges with the same ideology.

I've noticed that one of the things that seems to make supreme court justices unpopular is when the judges "change" a long-standing interpretation of the Constitution. But reducing the length of the appointments or electing the judges would cause this to happen more often, not less.

Good points...the fact that the court remains the same over the long term keeps the courts from being too reactionary. Most of the anger against the Supreme Court currently seems to stem from the fact that the Republicans have been trying to shut out all dissent and opposing viewpoints, and the Court is mostly immune from that sort of direct influence.